What is the effect of the non-obstante clause in Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in this context?
Coram: B.R. Gavai; Augustine George Masih
Forest Rights Act, 2006 — s.3(2) — Forest conservation — Protected forest declaration — Regularisation of encroachments — Modification of directions — Forest Rights Act, 2006 — s.3(2) — Small fragmented parcels — protected forest declaration stands — Held: Fragmented land parcels below 3 hectares not adjoining any forest must still be declared protected forest; no exception can be carved from that declaration. Section 3(2) permits community or public use of such land only after the prescribed statutory procedure is followed. (¶3, 5) Forest conservation — Encroachments before 12.12.1996 — saved to 10,365 hectares — Held further: Encroachments made before 12 December 1996 for agriculture, houses, slums, government colonies, schools and public utilities, to the extent of 10,365.049 hectares recommended by the Central Empowered Committee, stand saved. They shall not be treated as encroachments liable to removal under the earlier direction. (¶7, 9) Forest conservation — Post-1996 encroachments — regularisation per principal judgment — On facts, held: Encroachments after 12 December 1996 may be regularised by the State only in accordance with clauses (ii) to (vi) of paragraph 138 of the principal judgment. The judgment dated 22.05.2025 is modified to this limited extent; application disposed of. (¶9, 10)
Can fragmented forest land parcels of less than 3 hectares be excluded from the protected forest declaration for public use?
No; the Court declined to exempt such parcels from being declared protected forest but clarified that the State may still use them for purposes under Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 after following the prescribed procedure and satisfying the statutory conditions.
What is the effect of the non-obstante clause in Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in this context?
Section 3(2) begins with a non-obstante clause, meaning that notwithstanding the protected-forest declaration, the State can use such fragmented land parcels for the specified public purposes, but only strictly in accordance with the procedure and conditions laid down in that provision.
Were pre-1996 encroachments for agriculture, housing and public utilities protected from removal?
Yes; the Court accepted the State's prayer and directed that encroachments made prior to 12th December 1996 for agriculture, kuccha/pakka houses, slums, government colonies, government/ZP and private schools, and other public utilities, to the extent of 10,365.049 hectares as recommended by the CEC report, shall be saved from the earlier removal direction.
How are post-1996 encroachments to be treated?
Encroachments made after 12th December 1996 are not automatically saved; if the State Government wishes to regularise them, it must do so only in accordance with clauses (ii) to (vi) of paragraph 138 of the principal judgment.
What was the final order/outcome of the modification application?
The application was disposed of with prayer (i)(a) rejected and prayer (i)(b) allowed, resulting in insertion of a new paragraph 138(x-a) in the principal judgment.
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
The State of Maharashtra has filed the present application with the following prayers:- "(i) It is most respectfully prayed that the judgment and final order dated 22.05.2025 may kindly be modified as follows:- (a) That the Direction in para 138(vii) may kindly be modified to the extent that 'Fragmented Land Parcels' instead of being declared as protected forest each having an area of less than 3 hectares and not adjoining any forest area may be used for the purposes referred to in Section 3(2) in Forests Rights Act, 2006 or other public uses required by the concerned village, Goathan etc. (b) That the Direction in para 138(x) may be modified to the extent that the encroachments which are in use for the purposes of agriculture, kuccha houses, pakka houses, slums, govt. employee colonies, govt. or z.P. Schools, private schools to the extent of 10365.049 hectares may kindly be saved in the manner provided under para 138(ii) of the present judgment. (ii) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Insofar as prayer clause (i)(a) is concerned, we are not inclined to entertain the same. However, it is clear from sub- section (2) of Section 3 of The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') that the provisions therein begin with a non obstante clause.
If the State desires to use any of the fragmented land parcels, which we have directed to be declared as protected forest, the State can always take recourse to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act.
We are therefore not inclined to accept the prayer clause (i) (a) and reject the same.
Accordingly, with respect to the direction in para 138(vii) of the judgment and order dated 22ⁿd May 2025 is concerned, we direct that all such fragmented land parcels shall be declared as protected forest. We, however, clarify that if the State desires to use the said land for any of the purposes mentioned under sub- Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, the same can be done only after following the procedure prescribed therein and subject to fulfillment of the conditions specified therein.
Insofar as prayer clause (i)(b) is concerned, a perusal of the judgment and order dated 22d May 2025 would reveal that one of the main reasons why we were inclined to grant a one time exemption was that over the years and on account of apathy of revenue officials, the necessary revenue entries could not be made. For a long period of time, the land under consideration has been used for the purpose of agriculture, kuccha houses, pakka houses, slums, Govt. employees colonies, Govt. or z.P. Schools, private schools and other public utilities.
The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in its report itself had recommended the protection of such structures to the extent of 10,365.049 hectares.
In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow prayer clause (i)(b).
Accordingly, we direct that after clause (x) in paragraph 138 of the Judgment and order dated 22d May 2025 passed in I.A. No.12465/2019 etc. in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 the following paragraph is treated to to be added as paragraph (x-a). "(x-a) We, however, clarify that the directions made in paragraph (x) would not be applicable to the encroachments made prior to 12th December 1996 for the purposes of agriculture, kuccha houses, pakka houses, slums, govt. employees colonies, govt. or z.P. Schools, private schools and other public utilities to the extent of 10365.049 hectares, as has been observed in the report of the CEC. Insofar as any encroachment which has been made after 12th December 1996, if the State Government desires to regularize the same, the same shall be done only in accordance with the provisions of clauses (ii) to (vi) of paragraph 138 of this judgment."
The application is, accordingly, disposed of. NEW DELHI; AUGUST 25, 2025 ...CJI ( B.R. GAVAI ) .J ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
2023 INSC 501
2023 INSC 501 · Supreme Court of India
Whether the material on record discloses the essential ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, particularly whether the alleged caste-based abuses were uttered at a place 'within public view'?
2026 INSC 895 · Supreme Court of India
Whether the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 creates a distinct offence, where Section 2(b) only defines 'gang' and 'gangster' and the activities listed are already punishable under other penal laws?
2026 INSC 894 · Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeHeadnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy